Scientists refute evolution, Non-creationist scientists

[Arikay]

After having the hell card thrown at me enough times I treat it as if the person said,
"I can't refute what you said, but I don't care cause I'm more specialer than you so I'm right ."

 

[Stairway]

I know this is not entirely on topic, but I think it needs to be said:

It reeeaaally bugs me when Christians play the hell card. I see people gloating like that a lot on these boards, and it's really disturbing. If I think someone is not right with God, I'm sure not going to rub impending doom in their faces. It's callous, and it drives unbelievers away. It's as rude as any of the most sarcastic responses I've read here.

The eternal fate of our souls is hardly relevant to trying to figure out how life developed. Unless someone actually asks what the Bible says happens to an unbeliever, I don't think it should be brought up, or at the very least not so glibly.

Let's practice some more of that Christian love, shall we?

Edit: By the way, Halruaa, that eyeroll spewing giant is all kinds of awesome.

I agree with your comment. There are many things about the christian faith, and faith in general which appaul me. Perhaps none more than "christian hell houses". Google that, if you do not know what they are.

 

[cornerstone2004]

FACT :Creationism is the only means by which everything came into existence.

Mike

 

[Dal M.]

Please elaborate.

 

[Randall McNally]

FACT :Creationism is the only means by which everything came into existence.

SUGGESTION: Dictionaries are useful. They can help you understand the meanings of esoteric jargon like "fact."

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

FACT :Creationism is the only means by which everything came into existence.

Mike

Suggest you edit post to read;

*BELIEF: Creationism is the only means by which everything came into existence.*

 

[USincognito]

FACT :Creationism is the only means by which everything came into existence.

Mike

To elaborate on the previous posts...

FACT: Creationism is a scientific theory faslified in the 1800s that has evolved into a pseudoscientific mishmash of religion and bad apologetics.

FACT: Creation is the belief of religious people as to how the Universe/World/Life came into being and, while not scientific, is a perfectly valid Weltanschauung.

 

[Oncedeceived]

To elaborate on the previous posts...

FACT: Creationism is a scientific theory faslified in the 1800s that has evolved into a pseudoscientific mishmash of religion and bad apologetics.

FACT: One interpretation of Creationism was falsified which has then created a mishmash of misinterpreted religion and misguided apologetics.

FACT: Creation is the belief of religious people as to how the Universe/World/Life came into being and, while not scientific, is a perfectly valid Weltanschauung.

FACT: Creation is the act of creating the universe/world/life and when interpreted in different ways does not conflict with known elements of our universe.

 

[USincognito]

FACT: One interpretation of Creationism was falsified which has then created a mishmash of misinterpreted religion and misguided apologetics.

We're on the save page, just reading different paragraphs.

Creationism as expressed 200 years ago, and the Creationism expressed today is only differentiated by the passage of time. That's why in my second FACT I differentiated between Creationism and Creation.

 

[Oncedeceived]

We're on the save page, just reading different paragraphs.

Creationism as expressed 200 years ago, and the Creationism expressed today is only differentiated by the passage of time. That's why in my second FACT I differentiated between Creationism and Creation.

Sorry? I was talking about Creationism in regards to your statement on Creationism.

 

[USincognito]

Sorry? I was talking about Creationism in regards to your statement on Creationism.

Are you talking about Creationism as expressed by Young Earth Creationists - which is Creationism expressed by Creationists 200 years ago and Creationists today or the general idea of Creation as expressed by TEs, OECs, progressive Creationists and Gap Theorists? I'm specifically referring to the former.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you talking about Creationism as expressed by Young Earth Creationists - which is Creationism expressed by Creationists 200 years ago and Creationists today or the general idea of Creation as expressed by TEs, OECs, progressive Creationists and Gap Theorists? I'm specifically referring to the former.

I see. As long as you specified that not all Creationism had been falsified.

 

[USincognito]

I see. As long as you specified that not all Creationism had been falsified.

Ach! The pitfalls of the semantics of this debate.

For future reference in my posts Creationism refers to YEC while Creation refers to the religious beliefs of people who think God or other deity(ies) were involved in the creation of the Universe/Galaxy/Solar System/advent of life.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ach! The pitfalls of the semantics of this debate.

For future reference in my posts Creationism refers to YEC while Creation refers to the religious beliefs of people who think God or other deity(ies) were involved in the creation of the Universe/Galaxy/Solar System/advent of life.

There, there US don't cry. I'll let you label them what you want. I think they are the same though.

 

[Travis St. Hubbins]

The thing that bugs me most about the OP of this thread is that its based on an appeal to popularity. But the validity of scientific theories has never been decided by popular opinion, its the evidence that counts. Even if all the scientists quoted in the OP really did think the theory of evolution was wrong it wouldn't make the theory any less accurate.

If I could somehow convince every scientist in the world that bananas are blue, it wouldn't make the bananas any less yellow.

 

[Kasey]

Take a real good look at that "talkorigins" site that many of you refer others too, or more specifically, these quotes.

""This article directly addresses the scientific evidence in favor of common descent and macroevolution. This article is specifically intended for those who are scientifically minded but, for one reason or another, have come to believe that macroevolutionary theory explains little, makes few or no testable predictions, is unfalsifiable, or has not been scientifically demonstrated.""

I thought it was very interesting that they only state evidence that supports what they are trying to say is real.

""Therefore, the evidence for common descent discussed here is independent of specific gradualistic explanatory mechanisms. None of the dozens of predictions directly address how macroevolution has occurred, how fins were able to develop into limbs, how the leopard got its spots, or how the vertebrate eye evolved. None of the evidence recounted here assumes that natural selection is valid. None of the evidence assumes that natural selection is sufficient for generating adaptations or the differences between species and other taxa. Because of this evidentiary independence, the validity of the macroevolutionary conclusion does not depend on whether natural selection, or the inheritance of acquired characaters, or a force vitale, or something else is the true mechanism of adaptive evolutionary change. The scientific case for common descent stands, regardless.""

I would think that those who claim Evolution to be, basically, true, would actually have an explanation as to how these things happened. They say its happened, there is much evidence for it, but they dont know how. I would say the greatest evidence that would support Evolution is the "how". Dont you?

Funny, most of your Evolutions would say, as many of these professional and scientific sites, that there is no evidence to the contrary of Evolution. There is no evidence for "intelligent design". How rediculous. Perhaps all these scientists should stop listening to the "lies" being taught about the Bible from all of these church donominations and should sit down and study the Bible as much as they do "Evolution".

Nah...wouldnt want to do that would they? They might actually have to see something that might not actually support Evolution. Ooooooo, scary.

 

[Travis St. Hubbins]

I thought it was very interesting that they only state evidence that supports what they are trying to say is real.

If you can provide any evidence that contradicts what they're saying then please do so.

I would think that those who claim Evolution to be, basically, true, would actually have an explanation as to how these things happened. They say its happened, there is much evidence for it, but they dont know how. I would say the greatest evidence that would support Evolution is the "how". Dont you?

I think you've misunderstood what the author is saying here. It's not that we don't know how these things happened, there's plenty of evidence for specific cases of evolution of features. Talk Origins has a search engine so they're not hard to find. What the author is trying to say is that the case for common descent does not rely on these particular pieces of evidence and that it is not necessary to know how it happened in order to show that it did happen.

Funny, most of your Evolutions would say, as many of these professional and scientific sites, that there is no evidence to the contrary of Evolution. There is no evidence for "intelligent design". How rediculous. Perhaps all these scientists should stop listening to the "lies" being taught about the Bible from all of these church donominations and should sit down and study the Bible as much as they do "Evolution".

Nah...wouldnt want to do that would they? They might actually have to see something that might not actually support Evolution. Ooooooo, scary.

Again, if you can present any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution then please do so. If you can provide evidence that supports ID then please do so. Note that this does not include finding something that looks really complicated and saying "Wow! I can't imagine how this could have evolved, God must have made it."

By the way, you do know that there are plenty of Christian evolutionists who have studied both the Bible and Biology and find neither to be contradictory to the other?

 

[Kasey]

If you can provide any evidence that contradicts what they're saying then please do so.

The age-old question - whats your evidence? Heh, if your willing to talk to me and understand where Im coming from, then I could very well give you my evidence. Send me a PM if you want to hear me out.

I think you've misunderstood what the author is saying here. It's not that we don't know how these things happened, there's plenty of evidence for specific cases of evolution of features. Talk Origins has a search engine so they're not hard to find. What the author is trying to say is that the case for common descent does not rely on these particular pieces of evidence and that it is not necessary to know how it happened in order to show that it did happen.

Perhaps, but if I remember the quote correctly, they specifically state that the entire site that they run does not directly address "how" it happened, but the evidence is still there.

Again, if you can present any evidence that contradicts the theory of evolution then please do so. If you can provide evidence that supports ID then please do so. Note that this does not include finding something that looks really complicated and saying "Wow! I can't imagine how this could have evolved, God must have made it."

Well, I believe that I do have evidence, though, at first, I garuntee that you most likely will not believe so. I dont have lab results off-hand, I dont have biological tests to be able to determine things the way these scientists do. Ive never tried to do so and even if I wanted too, I wouldnt know where to start.

Yet, my evidence does come from a different point of view, a different perspective, but that doesnt neccesarily mean that it contradicts science. I could show you how I believe so, but it would take some time. If you are willing, then PM me and I will tell you about it.

By the way, you do know that there are plenty of Christian evolutionists who have studied both the Bible and Biology and find neither to be contradictory to the other?

Oh? Then perhaps these same people could tell me what the Biblical definition of "sin" is? Perhaps these same Christians can tell me where the Bible specifically allows the celebration of a pagan festival called "Christmas" which is the Roman Festival of Saturnalia as well as used by the Wiccans as "Yule"?

 

[corvus_corax]

Oh? Then perhaps these same people could tell me what the Biblical definition of "sin" is? Perhaps these same Christians can tell me where the Bible specifically allows the celebration of a pagan festival called "Christmas" which is the Roman Festival of Saturnalia as well as used by the Wiccans as "Yule"?

Ok, I'll be the one to open up this door-
What does Christmas have to do with evolution/creationism?
Im not quite sure Im getting your point

 

[Kasey]

Ok, I'll be the one to open up this door-
What does Christmas have to do with evolution/creationism?
Im not quite sure Im getting your point

Because if "Christians" dont even know this, then how can they be trusted when they say the Bible promotes Evolution?